Pro-style vs spread

[steelcurtain55.]

I see this being brought up all the time...

What is pro-style offense?

What are the other styles - "spread" "option" "multiple"?

It's a rhetorical question but too many people are getting "concepts" mixed up with "scheme/style."

No one minus the academies are living in base schemes and even they're multiple.

College football isn't high school football where you see a classic "Wing T" offense or a straight 21 personnel "I formation" offense.

Everyone in college is multiple - they take concepts from different types of root offenses and build a scheme.

You can be a base 21 personnel team and utilize with 2 backs under center with an inline TE. Or, you can do the same thing in gun with 1 back, a sniffer and an H-back. The concepts they build off it are up to the coach/talent at his disposal. You can be a 10 personnel team (1 back - 4 wides) and be a smashmouth team. You can be an 12 personnel team and have a wide open attack.

People bring up "creativity" way too much. I've found artists with average talent seem to lose more then guys who have sound systems with good talent. One reason OC's are afraid to get radical and "creative" is because it creates unpredictable responses by the defense. The best OC's want predictable pictures for them and their players. JT O'Sullivan has often said he doesn't like motions and trades as a former QB because it often muddies the picture up for him.

You win with sound fundamentals. It always goes back to fundamentals and sound scheme. You can only put so many band aids on an offense or defense. Fundamentals are a product of coaching and talent. I used to laugh when coaches used to say "you got to play lower if you want to block that guy." I'm like dude this guard is 215lbs trying to block this 290lb war daddy, you can have all the fundamentals in the world but if you don't got the horsepower to employ those fundamentals, it don't really matter.

 

[pierre93]

I see this being brought up all the time...

What is pro-style offense?

What are the other styles - "spread" "option" "multiple"?

It's a rhetorical question but too many people are getting "concepts" mixed up with "scheme/style."

No one minus the academies are living in base schemes and even they're multiple.

College football isn't high school football where you see a classic "Wing T" offense or a straight 21 personnel "I formation" offense.

Everyone in college is multiple - they take concepts from different types of root offenses and build a scheme.

You can be a base 21 personnel team and utilize with 2 backs under center with an inline TE. Or, you can do the same thing in gun with 1 back, a sniffer and an H-back. The concepts they build off it are up to the coach/talent at his disposal. You can be a 10 personnel team (1 back - 4 wides) and be a smashmouth team. You can be an 12 personnel team and have a wide open attack.

People bring up "creativity" way too much. I've found artists with average talent seem to lose more then guys who have sound systems with good talent. One reason OC's are afraid to get radical and "creative" is because it creates unpredictable responses by the defense. The best OC's want predictable pictures for them and their players. JT O'Sullivan has often said he doesn't like motions and trades as a former QB because it often muddies the picture up for him.

You win with sound fundamentals. It always goes back to fundamentals and sound scheme. You can only put so many band aids on an offense or defense. Fundamentals are a product of coaching and talent. I used to laugh when coaches used to say "you got to play lower if you want to block that guy." I'm like dude this guard is 215lbs trying to block this 290lb war daddy, you can have all the fundamentals in the world but if you don't got the horsepower to employ those fundamentals, it don't really matter.

PN-FC should just implement the triple option if they're so infatuated with a run game.

 

[RaleighPittFan]

I see this being brought up all the time...

What is pro-style offense?

What are the other styles - "spread" "option" "multiple"?

It's a rhetorical question but too many people are getting "concepts" mixed up with "scheme/style."

No one minus the academies are living in base schemes and even they're multiple.

College football isn't high school football where you see a classic "Wing T" offense or a straight 21 personnel "I formation" offense.

Everyone in college is multiple - they take concepts from different types of root offenses and build a scheme.

You can be a base 21 personnel team and utilize with 2 backs under center with an inline TE. Or, you can do the same thing in gun with 1 back, a sniffer and an H-back. The concepts they build off it are up to the coach/talent at his disposal. You can be a 10 personnel team (1 back - 4 wides) and be a smashmouth team. You can be an 12 personnel team and have a wide open attack.

People bring up "creativity" way too much. I've found artists with average talent seem to lose more then guys who have sound systems with good talent. One reason OC's are afraid to get radical and "creative" is because it creates unpredictable responses by the defense. The best OC's want predictable pictures for them and their players. JT O'Sullivan has often said he doesn't like motions and trades as a former QB because it often muddies the picture up for him.

You win with sound fundamentals. It always goes back to fundamentals and sound scheme. You can only put so many band aids on an offense or defense. Fundamentals are a product of coaching and talent. I used to laugh when coaches used to say "you got to play lower if you want to block that guy." I'm like dude this guard is 215lbs trying to block this 290lb war daddy, you can have all the fundamentals in the world but if you don't got the horsepower to employ those fundamentals, it don't really matter.

I'm not sure I follow this.

Are you saying Pitt's offensive scheme is sound, but they players aren't good enough?

 

[recruitsreadtheseboards]

I see this being brought up all the time...

What is pro-style offense?

What are the other styles - "spread" "option" "multiple"?

It's a rhetorical question but too many people are getting "concepts" mixed up with "scheme/style."

No one minus the academies are living in base schemes and even they're multiple.

College football isn't high school football where you see a classic "Wing T" offense or a straight 21 personnel "I formation" offense.

Everyone in college is multiple - they take concepts from different types of root offenses and build a scheme.

You can be a base 21 personnel team and utilize with 2 backs under center with an inline TE. Or, you can do the same thing in gun with 1 back, a sniffer and an H-back. The concepts they build off it are up to the coach/talent at his disposal. You can be a 10 personnel team (1 back - 4 wides) and be a smashmouth team. You can be an 12 personnel team and have a wide open attack.

People bring up "creativity" way too much. I've found artists with average talent seem to lose more then guys who have sound systems with good talent. One reason OC's are afraid to get radical and "creative" is because it creates unpredictable responses by the defense. The best OC's want predictable pictures for them and their players. JT O'Sullivan has often said he doesn't like motions and trades as a former QB because it often muddies the picture up for him.

You win with sound fundamentals. It always goes back to fundamentals and sound scheme. You can only put so many band aids on an offense or defense. Fundamentals are a product of coaching and talent. I used to laugh when coaches used to say "you got to play lower if you want to block that guy." I'm like dude this guard is 215lbs trying to block this 290lb war daddy, you can have all the fundamentals in the world but if you don't got the horsepower to employ those fundamentals, it don't really matter.

What's also true, at least in Class 4A and over, it is rare that high schools run a run oriented offense anymore, or a "pro set" RB/FB 2 WR's/ TE. It is mostly some spread offense with multiple receivers and backs running much motion.

 

[The Ole Six-Fiver]

I'm not sure I follow this.

Are you saying Pitt's offensive scheme is sound, but they players aren't good enough?

All we have to do with Cig system is obtain Alabama’s talent, and we’d be Undefeated. Why didn’t anyone think of this sooner?

 

[TD_6082]

All we have to do with Cig system is obtain Alabama’s talent, and we’d be Undefeated. Why didn’t anyone think of this sooner?

It's not an accident that Pitt won the ACC with 2 first round draft picks at QB & WR. It's not by chance that the strength of this team is the defense, where several of those guys will be playing on Sunday.

 

[Joe the Panther Fan]

All we have to do with Cig system is obtain Alabama’s talent, and we’d be Undefeated. Why didn’t anyone think of this sooner?

And the ironic thing is that the couple of programs out there that could recruit the talent to make this current system work, Alabama as a prime example, have recognized that in college football circa 2022 that doing something like that isn't really a very good idea.

 

[HailtoPitt]

You win with sound fundamentals.

I agree with this. Also, good execution. When we suddenly are running the wildcat, which we almost never do, it should surprise nobody when there's a fumble.

I don't care what 'style' or 'system' the offense uses, as long as it makes sense. If the run game is working and Pitt is scoring, then by all means line up in a condensed set and pound the rock. But, we typically don't have the horses to do that against most teams. It's like we are trying to us the Calvary when others are firing artillery.

And what's the point of running this offense if the TE isn't a threat? Seems like that position should be a key asset.

Even if Pitt recruited 4 and 5 stars for every OL recruit,I still don't think this offense would work. We are too predictable and unbalanced.

 

[TD_6082]

All we have to do with Cig system is obtain Alabama’s talent, and we’d be Undefeated. Why didn’t anyone think of this sooner?

What is the Cig system?

He's been very multiple all year long. The system isn't the problem. Cig's problem as an OC is personnel. He's an OC still searching answers on what his offense does well and can execute.

There's a reason Robert Anane's offense looked good at UVA last year and looks like garbage at Syracuse. At least he has a gritty QB that can make some plays with his legs, because their offensive personnel is almost as bad as Pitt's.

 

[steelcurtain55.]

PN-FC should just implement the triple option if they're so infatuated with a run game.

What QB's and WR's are going to be drafted from PITT?

 

[TD_6082]

I agree with this. Also, good execution. When we suddenly are running the wildcat, which we almost never do, it should surprise nobody when there's a fumble.

I don't care what 'style' or 'system' the offense uses, as long as it makes sense. If the run game is working and Pitt is scoring, then by all means line up in a condensed set and pound the rock. But, we typically don't have the horses to do that against most teams. It's like we are trying to us the Calvary when others are firing artillery.

And what's the point of running this offense if the TE isn't a threat? Seems like that position should be a key asset.

Even if Pitt recruited 4 and 5 stars for every OL recruit,I still don't think this offense would work. We are too predictable and unbalanced.

LoL. The Wildcat fumble came near the end of the run. Is he supposed to secure the ball differently when running out of the Wildcat than on handoffs from the QB?

 

[steelcurtain55.]

And the ironic thing is that the couple of programs out there that could recruit the talent to make this current system work, Alabama as a prime example, have recognized that in college football circa 2022 that doing something like that isn't really a very good idea.

Interesting..

In the NFL where the talent is completely even across the board you still see guys like Kyle Shannahan running a version of his dad and Alex Gibb's system that is 35 years old and making it work. You would think they would want an easier or better way of playing offense.

I'm a huge fan of NDSU. I believe they are 9-3 vs. FBS teams. They're 6-1 was FBS teams since 2010. They don't have some fertile recruiting ground being based in Fargo, ND... There are FCS teams who have way better recruiting territories and resources compared to them. Yet, they dominate teams and they base offense is under center "I" formation. They're very multiple but they cut their teeth going under center and handling people.

 

[steelcurtain55.]

I'm not sure I follow this.

Are you saying Pitt's offensive scheme is sound, but they players aren't good enough?

it's a combination of both.

We don't have a great OL. We look slow at WR.

Bub Means went to Tennessee and found out quick he wasn't going to get time if he stayed so he bolted to a place he could get time.

Why would we employ 3-4 WR sets consistently when they're average?

 

[steelcurtain55.]

And what's the point of running this offense if the TE isn't a threat? Seems like that position should be a key asset.

What if isn't the offense but the QB?

It doesn't make sense. Cigs offense with Dorin and Byham was friendly towards TE's.

 

[TD_6082]

it's a combination of both.

We don't have a great OL. We look slow at WR.

Bub Means went to Tennessee and found out quick he wasn't going to get time if he stayed so he bolted to a place he could get time.

Why would we employ 3-4 WR sets consistently when they're average?

Tennessee put Means at DB. He left because he wanted to play WR.

 

[HailtoPitt]

LoL. The Wildcat fumble came near the end of the run. Is he supposed to secure the ball differently when running out of the Wildcat than on handoffs from the QB?

So should they have went back to it?

 

[HailtoPitt]

What if isn't the offense but the QB?

It doesn't make sense. Cigs offense with Dorin and Byham was friendly towards TE's.

Then he needs to put one of the other two QBs in.

 

[MarshallGoldberg]

it's a combination of both.

We don't have a great OL. We look slow at WR.

Bub Means went to Tennessee and found out quick he wasn't going to get time if he stayed so he bolted to a place he could get time.

Why would we employ 3-4 WR sets consistently when they're average?

People increasingly have convinced themself that there is this offense ("spread" or whatever) that allows you to hide your deficiencies by "putting athletes in space" or some other cliche. It's not really logical but people like repeating it.

That said, I'd like to see a little more Harbaugh from Cignetti...make it easier for Slovis or Yarnell or Patti.

 

[HailtoPitt]

People increasingly have convinced themself that there is this offense ("spread" or whatever) that allows you to hide your deficiencies by "putting athletes in space" or some other cliche. It's not really logical but people like repeating it.

That said, I'd like to see a little more Harbaugh from Cignetti...make it easier for Slovis or Yarnell or Patti.

Ok, then how to you describe the spread offense and it's purpose?

 

[MarshallGoldberg]

Ok, then how to you describe the spread offense and it's purpose?

I don't speak of a singular spread offense. So I wouldn't.

I think when most people talk about "the spread" they are referring to almost the entire single back revolution since Erickson et al. in the 80s. But especially a few things that made it different than two back offenses, at the aggregate
- four vertical passing threats at the LOS
- more zone running, but sometimes keep some man blocking plays w h backs etc
- bubble screens and tunnel screens as core constraint plays
- zone read (since Rich Rod)
- RPO (more recent addition)

The NFL offense has grown pretty similar to a spread as well though they have the film room time to get a little more complicated and an economic incentive to keep their $200 million QBs from running the ball much. Both levels of the sport we're talking about here borrowed heavily from the west coast offense to air raid evolution on the one hand and the choice routes of the run n shoot on the other. Most do basic zone running stuff from many formations. Mostly single back. Most teams use a tight end the majority of snaps now unlike some early "spread" teams. It's mostly sort of converged.

Anyway idk what the point of all of this is but Pitt's problems to me are primarily more talent and execution than scheme, which is usually true in football.

 

[HailtoPitt]

I don't speak of a singular spread offense. So I wouldn't.

I think when most people talk about "the spread" they are referring to almost the entire single back revolution since Erickson et al. in the 80s. But especially a few things that made it different than two back offenses, at the aggregate
- four vertical passing threats at the LOS
- more zone running, but sometimes keep some man blocking plays w h backs etc
- bubble screens and tunnel screens as core constraint plays
- zone read (since Rich Rod)
- RPO (more recent addition)

The NFL offense has grown pretty similar to a spread as well though they have the film room time to get a little more complicated and an economic incentive to keep their $200 million QBs from running the ball much. Both levels of the sport we're talking about here borrowed heavily from the west coast offense to air raid evolution on the one hand and the choice routes of the run n shoot on the other. Most do basic zone running stuff from many formations. Mostly single back. Most teams use a tight end the majority of snaps now unlike some early "spread" teams. It's mostly sort of converged.

Anyway idk what the point of all of this is but Pitt's problems to me are primarily more talent and execution than scheme, which is usually true in football.

Isn't the main purpose of the spread to stretch the field horizontally?

If so, why?

 

[MarshallGoldberg]

Isn't the main purpose of the spread to stretch the field horizontally?

If so, why?

If you're Baylor or Tennessee, yes. Because you want to line up so wide as to de facto force man coverage to throw the ball down field one on one; or run inside zone downhill.

If you're Urban Meyer, or Gus Malzahn no. You want to punch people in the mouth running power, counter, zone read, and then set up a jet sweep except you're in a shot gun as opposed to 1995 Nebraska doing it under center. And you're maybe using with a hybrid h back who is a receiving threat, not a full back.

I just don't find "spread" the most useful term. Most teams like Alabama and Clemson and yes Pitt are just sort of generically "multiple" now. And so is a lot of the NFL. I thought it was a more useful term when people were really talking about Rich Rodriguez's offense, not these hybrids now. Heck even the "air raid" teams like USC/Oklahoma are running for 250 yards some games. Mike Leach would never

 

[steelcurtain55.]

Isn't the main purpose of the spread to stretch the field horizontally?

If so, why?

It has many purposes

When I think of the collegiate spread, I think of what the MAC schools and Northwestern were doing in the late 90's early 00's. They couldn't run the ball vs better opponents. They couldn't recruit the OL/QB's who would end up in the B10. So they spread the formation and created a competent running game.

Back then teams were basing out of all kinds of zone coverage and these zones were being stretched all over the place. It was hard to cover and it was hard on run fits imo.

When the quarters/rip-liz match game came into vogue, I felt the horizontal advantage the spread had then started to become negated.

 

[KennyHeisman8]

What is the Cig system?

He's been very multiple all year long. The system isn't the problem. Cig's problem as an OC is personnel. He's an OC still searching answers on what his offense does well and can execute.

There's a reason Robert Anane's offense looked good at UVA last year and looks like garbage at Syracuse. At least he has a gritty QB that can make some plays with his legs, because their offensive personnel is almost as bad as Pitt's.

Again, you are amazingly clueless. YOu keep saying the Bama and Pitt offensive systems are similar...they aren't at all. You almost have to be trolling.

 

[MarshallGoldberg]

It has many purposes

When I think of the collegiate spread, I think of what the MAC schools and Northwestern were doing in the late 90's early 00's. They couldn't run the ball vs better opponents. They couldn't recruit the OL/QB's who would end up in the B10. So they spread the formation and created a competent running game.

Back then teams were basing out of all kinds of zone coverage and these zones were being stretched all over the place. It was hard to cover and it was hard on run fits imo.

When the quarters/rip-liz match game came into vogue, I felt the horizontal advantage the spread had then started to become negated.

Yeah I think one of the big moments in spread history was Joe Tiller/Drew Brees getting easy yards against traditional cover 3 teams with their "spread" -- and then Pat Narduzzi helped develop one strategy to stop that while remaining sound against the run.

That said I'm curious if you'd like to see more RPO with Slovis? Do you think that could help him avoid having to read the defense more traditionally?

 

[steelcurtain55.]

If you're Baylor or Tennessee, yes. Because you want to line up so wide as to de facto force man coverage to throw the ball down field one on one; or run inside zone downhill.

If you're Urban Meyer, or Gus Malzahn no. You want to punch people in the mouth running power, counter, zone read, and then set up a jet sweep except you're in a shot gun as opposed to 1995 Nebraska doing it under center. And you're maybe using with a hybrid h back who is a receiving threat, not a full back.

I just don't find "spread" the most useful term. Most teams like Alabama and Clemson and yes Pitt are just sort of generically "multiple" now. And so is a lot of the NFL. I thought it was a more useful term when people were really talking about Rich Rodriguez's offense, not these hybrids now. Heck even the "air raid" teams like USC/Oklahoma are running for 250 yards some games. Mike Leach would never

great post

I love Urban's simple philosophy.

He went to Florida and he's been known to tell people he wanted to run Paul Johnson's triple from under center. He said he didn't have the courage to do so because of alumni and administration. So he took his Notre Dame option principles and put in a gun but like you said make no mistake - he wanted punch you in the face. He said "if you have 8-9 in the box, we're throwing the ball. If you have 7 in the box, we are going to read someone and run the ball. If you have six in the 6 or less in the box, we running the ball down your throat!"

 

[steelcurtain55.]

Yeah I think one of the big moments in spread history was Joe Tiller/Drew Brees getting easy yards against traditional cover 3 teams with their "spread" -- and then Pat Narduzzi helped develop one strategy to stop that while remaining sound against the run.

That said I'm curious if you'd like to see more RPO with Slovis? Do you think that could help him avoid having to read the defense more traditionally?

The RPO idea might be a good one. I saw one being ran vs. WVU. I'm not sure how much has been run since.

 

[MarshallGoldberg]

great post

I love Urban's simple philosophy.

He went to Florida and he's been known to tell people he wanted to run Paul Johnson's triple from under center. He said he didn't have the courage to do so because of alumni and administration. So he took his Notre Dame option principles and put in a gun but like you said make no mistake - he wanted punch you in the face. He said "if you have 8-9 in the box, we're throwing the ball. If you have 7 in the box, we are going to read someone and run the ball. If you have six in the 6 or less in the box, we running the ball down your throat!"

I assume you've seen the video with Meyer's staff meeting with Alex Gibbs to learn his blocking schemes? Fascinating that it starts with Gibbs saying "should I show this to you with one back or two" and Meyer replies "we haven't really decided that yet." Never liked the guy but a very honest moment for a coach, just wanted to learn from the best.

 

[TD_6082]

Again, you are amazingly clueless. YOu keep saying the Bama and Pitt offensive systems are similar...they aren't at all. You almost have to be trolling.

They absolutely are. Both are pro-style multiple. What are you watching?

 

[KennyHeisman8]

great post

I love Urban's simple philosophy.

He went to Florida and he's been known to tell people he wanted to run Paul Johnson's triple from under center. He said he didn't have the courage to do so because of alumni and administration. So he took his Notre Dame option principles and put in a gun but like you said make no mistake - he wanted punch you in the face. He said "if you have 8-9 in the box, we're throwing the ball. If you have 7 in the box, we are going to read someone and run the ball. If you have six in the 6 or less in the box, we running the ball down your throat!"

But this is the thing that Cignetti doesn't do. He runs straight into the 8 and 9 man box. Canada while he was here ran a bunch of bunch sets, but found ways to throw from those sets. We did amazing at PA/RPO where Peterman would hit wide open TE's down the seam.

 

[KennyHeisman8]

They absolutely are. Both are pro-style multiple. What are you watching?

Like I said, are you trolling?

 

[franklinman]

What if isn't the offense but the QB?

It doesn't make sense. Cigs offense with Dorin and Byham was friendly towards TE's.

Byham wasn't in Cigs offence, 8 touches his senior year in 16 games, blocking only.

 

[HailtoPitt]

I appreciate the knowledgeable posts from the two of you. I'm not advocating some RichRod style "spread offense", and I don't think many others are, either.

What I want to see them do more is spread the offense out, instead of continuing trying these condensed sets, where the defense appears to just stack the box and then they either stop the run or run through the OL on pass plays. Yet... Cignetti KEEPS it up. These formations are not giving Slovis a chance to succeed. It's just NOT working. Either try with a different QB, or change things up with the offense.

From my point of view, Slovis just isn't comfortable in those sets. He seems a lot more at ease when the WRs are spread out 3 wide.

 

[PittPharm2002]

What is the Cig system?

He's been very multiple all year long. The system isn't the problem. Cig's problem as an OC is personnel. He's an OC still searching answers on what his offense does well and can execute.

There's a reason Robert Anane's offense looked good at UVA last year and looks like garbage at Syracuse. At least he has a gritty QB that can make some plays with his legs, because their offensive personnel is almost as bad as Pitt's.

The play designs are very much a problem. And you have to be a simpleton to not see it

 

[KennyHeisman8]

They absolutely are. Both are pro-style multiple. What are you watching?

I just went and watched the first few series of the Bama Tennessee game. Bama never went under center. They generally snapped the ball with 15-20 on the playclock. They had receivers spread on most plays, with maybe two or three where they were bunched in tight.

Pitt and Alabama do not run a similar offense at all. Comparing Cignetti's offense to Alabama's is absolutely absurd.

 

[TD_6082]

The play designs are very much a problem. And you have to be a simpleton to not see it

Maybe a few, but that isn't the biggest problem with the offense. The biggest problem is personnel and execution.

You have to be a simpleton not to see that too.

 

[Joe the Panther Fan]

They're very multiple but they cut their teeth going under center and handling people.

Now list all the FBS schools that line up under center and handle people all the time.

The fact that Nick Saban has said that Alabama can't play that way any more ought to tell you something. But I guess not.

 

[thebadby2]

They absolutely are. Both are pro-style multiple. What are you watching?

The only thing similar about those two offenses is that that they’re multiple. But Bama runs spread concepts out of the shotgun, lots of RPO, lots of vertical routes, lots of tempo out of wide formations on the vast majority of its offensive plays. Pitt doesn’t really do much any of that.

Not sure what you’re talking about here. I doubt there’s anyone who would describe the Bama offensive scheme as “pro style”, which has become a bit of an antiquated term.

You said above that Pitt’s offensive struggles are due to personnel deficiencies, not coaching. That a lazy excuse, as is blaming those struggles entirely on the OC. There are certainly issues with the personnel, but huge components of what makes any offense succeed or fail are game planning and play calling. Cig has not shown basic proficiency in either area to this point.

 

[TD_6082]

I just went and watched the first few series of the Bama Tennessee game. Bama never went under center. They generally snapped the ball with 15-20 on the playclock. They had receivers spread on most plays, with maybe two or three where they were bunched in tight.

Pitt and Alabama do not run a similar offense at all. Comparing Cignetti's offense to Alabama's is absolutely absurd.

What does the amount of time left on the play clock have to do with the style of offense?

They are both pro-style multiple offenses. Bama doesn't throw with Young lined up under center very often, but they absolutely do it on occasion. They also use some I formation, although usually near the goal line. They run a lot of plays out of a bunch formation too. Bama runs more a lot more RPO & they seem to like stacked reciever sets a lot.

 

[TD_6082]

The only thing similar about those two offenses is that that they’re multiple. But Bama runs spread concepts out of the shotgun, lots of RPO, lots of vertical routes, lots of tempo out of wide formations on the vast majority of its offensive plays. Pitt doesn’t really do much any of that.

Not sure what you’re talking about here. I doubt there’s anyone who would describe the Bama offensive scheme as “pro style”, which has become a bit of an antiquated term.

You said above that Pitt’s offensive struggles are due to personnel deficiencies, not coaching. That a lazy excuse, as is blaming those struggles entirely on the OC. There are certainly issues with the personnel, but huge components of what makes any offense succeed or fail are game planning and play calling. Cig has not shown basic proficiency in either area to this point.

Last night, Pitt had too many drives killed with turnovers. They also had too many plays blown up by whiff blocks.

One one the best play calls all night was a screen pass to Izzy that was killed by poor execution,. Tbh, that particular play looked like it had a chance to go all the way.

Pitt had way too many self inflicted wounds in terms of execution last night. They didn't give themselves a chance to win, despite plenty of opportunities to do so.